Unfair to defer summer borns

[ifyoudont]

Dd was born late august, is the youngest in her year but instead of rest of her class being just under a year older than her , there’s 4 children who are nearly a year and a half older because they were born April -august the year above and deferred.

Somebody has to be the youngest and somebody the oldest but surely the fairest way is to keep the age difference within a year.

Dd is doing well academically and socially and only really struggling during playtime and PE as she is smaller. A boy in her class has early May birthday but because he was deferred instead of being 3+ months older than her is 15+ months older and the biggest and strongest in the class leading to several incidents where he has injured her.

A family member has a baby due in June and is already mentioned deferring them without knowing how advanced or behind they are going to be.

I definitely do think there are a few exceptions where it can be necessary but it seems to to be often done just because it can. Maybe there should be be stricter guidelines and some sort of test required?

AIBU? If so what am I missing?
I don’t hear people share this opinion often and haven’t shared it with family member

What do you mean it 'widens the gap'? What gap, between who?

It's about 'is child A ready for school?'

Other systems deal with this by allowing deferred entry, early entry, acceleration and repeated years. Children all develop differently, plus life happens.

yup, two non linked issues here. If children are getting injured, that needs sorting by the school and if they are not sorting it they need pressure on them to do so. Size and behaviour of children need not be linked to age.

I think the preschool free hours needs changing. Currently summer born children get 3 terms of preschool whereas autumn born children get 5 terms of preschool. I think 18 months of preschool before starting school for all children would make more sense.

I have October, March and July born children and I've really not noticed any differences in how they coped either academically or physically.

My daughter is the smallest in her class despite having a Spring rather than summer birthday, and it's not caused any injuries to her yet...despite some of the other kids totally towering over her. Surely that's the issue you need to address, not whether people defer their children or not?

It makes no difference what another family chose to do with their child. It has no impact on you personally. Thankfully the education authorities and councils are acting on evidence that suggests deferring some summer born children can be beneficial to them.

If you have a child who is academically able and will thrive then good for you, but if you have a child that is struggling being given an extra year could really help them.

The way some people on this thread are going on you’d think it was a disadvantage to their child and it’s not! It’s as if 8 year olds and behind held back the way some are talking about.

What advantage do you think they are getting?

So many nasty comments here, and lots of misinformation too.

A delayed child will not have to go into year one, or miss out on a year going into secondary, or be unable to sit the 11+ or have any issues if they need to do 6th form resits. They can take part in sports and clubs within their cohort years and railcards are up to 25 so its irrelevant.

We delayed our son who has an early August birthday who had no delays and is already very big for his age 98th centile - yes he will have an advantage going into reception and throughout his schooling now, that's kind of the point! I am fairly sure we all want our children to do the best they absolutely can and there is nothing wrong with that. I want him to thrive at school not just manage.

Summer borns lose an entire year of education if they start at a "normal" time why would you want to rob them of that.

Edit : didn't mean to quote!

It needs to be left up to the families to decide, they know what's best for the child.

Children don't hurt others because of their size, a year ago he could have been smaller but 100x worse (with whatever issue is causing him to hurt others) in a school setting.

lol. Just split up all the children by size order?? 😂

My DS was born in late September so he was always the oldest in his class, going to university at 19. But the cohort only had a maximum of 12 months between oldest and youngest.

I agree that the system does need to be tightened. It should be open to those born June-August who fit certain criteria. For example, children who were born premature and their due date was September onwards. Children with known speech and language delay, developmental delays, hearing and sight difficulties. Children on the Autism assessment pathway, children who have had significant health needs.

The scope could be quite wide but essentially summer born + a recognised need.

I know a family who have deferred to get a “head start” for their May born dc. He is by far the strongest boy both academically and physically in his year group. He struggles socially because all the other boys seem quite young in comparison. So doing well at school in lessons but miserable in his peer group.

I know how you feel OP, I have a late august born DD who was tiny in her class and there were older, bigger boys who had deferred and were turning six while she was still going to be four for 3/4 more months! I'm not sure what the answer is but I do think it's an issue.
I saw no reason to defer DD when the decision was made, but I sometimes wish I had, given what we know now - she has dyslexia and the age gap a) meant it was missed for ages because they said 'oh she is just august born and needs to catch up' and b) has made it even harder for her because she feels even more differently abled to the other kids than she really is when you control for age.

It’s one of disadvantages of a system that is being able to defer. Some will do it as child not ready but some sharp elbowed parents do it to try and get advantage. It’s an actual thing in America called red shirting - basically holding back boys so they are bigger physically and better at sports so they shine, get training opportunities and potentially get lucrative college scholarships. Studies show high percentage of premiership players are autumn born.

Yes of course there’s going to variation. But there is a relationship between age and size.

But it's not the only reason for variation.

So let's say no-one defers and there are still kids far, far bigger in your DD's class (as there will be throughout her whole school career).

What then?

A GOOD reception class (i.e., one that is play-based and not too formal ) acknowledges that summer-born children may have difficulties and recognizes these!

Yes, my understanding is that a child who defers will go straight to year 1, they join reception aged 5 - that can be detrimental to the other children.

Yes, agree with the infantilizing point mentioned, too. (I am a parent of a July-born child and have taught in reception classes !)

Widens the gap between the oldest and the youngest in each year.

They’ll be winter born children who aren’t ‘ready’ for school

If it was about whose ready, then there should be a test that everyone can apply for not just those born from april 1st.

Of course it impacts her child. They are now in a cohort with children that are a lot older than the normal academic year would allow. We have academic years for a reason. It is a nonsense to suggest that this won't impact her child. Sports Days and Academic Awards are much more likely to go to the deferred children as they are that bit more mature and skilled. Of course it won't always go that way and the oldest always had an advantage but not this much of an advantage making it even more unsurmountable for summer born children that aren't deferred.

It's also true that some deferred kids are simply too old for their year group and you get the types of incidents that OP refers too regarding physical play.

The advantage they think they’re getting is that their child is a year older when they start school so will do better academically. I have no idea if this is true, I have a year 6 summer born (31st August) who apparently is working at greater depth for SATs but obviously don’t know what she’d be like if we deferred.

It seems bonkers to me that the definition of a summer born child is from the 1st of April until the 31st of August. It's such a huge timeframe.

One of mine is a late summer baby, when I looked at deferring him, I could have done but he wouldn’t have gone into reception he would have started in year 1, so it sounds like your school is choosing a different way of doing things as there wasn’t an option for mine to join reception the year after he should have.
Our youngest is also a summer baby and we didn’t even look to defer him because we had already been through primary schooling with the other and knew by about year 3 there was no real difference between him academically and others in his class whereas he had struggled at the start.
I think holding them back a year should be done as a last resort, not become the norm because they do catch up over their time in primary.

I agree with you - parent if premature twins born 30August. I think deferring should only be for dc with delayed development.

I agree with you OP. I know a few kids that were deferred and will be almost 6 years when they start school! FWIW the parents who I know that have deferred their kids without any reason other than they have some kind of Scandinavian/European ideal for starting school later have either complained their kids aren't stimulated enough at nursery anymore (because our educstion system is not designed to have 5 year olds in nursery) or their kids are so much older they make the younger kids feel intimidated by their older behaviour and throwing their weight around (its not fair to have almost 6 year olds in the same nursery room with kids who have just turned 3 years old). In my opinion the first year of school is just an extension of nursery anyway with all the learner led play.

I think the initial policy to widen the age that you can deffer was intended to remove the stigma of starting school later if you have reason to (SEN etc) but instead middle class parents have jumped on it as some kind of lifestyle ideal.

This is like the trans argument isn't it? Some women are bigger/stronger/faster than other women so does that mean that men should be allowed to compete against women too?

Natural variance within sex or age groups will exist. It doesn't mean that these groups should be merged into one and it should become some kind of free for all.

I agree. I also agree with PPs that proper summer babies with genuine reasons (I mean an august born premie with developmental issues) should be able to defer but parents with a May born child shouldn’t be able to defer without good reason. Or at least, not allowed to drop a year - start in year one if they feel it’s better (I doubt it would be).

It just puts August born kids whose parents aren’t in a position to defer, at even more of an disadvantage. Financial privilege is a huge factor in being able to defer, and wealthier families of May born children are just pushing back down the August born kids of poorer families by deferring for no reason. The average physical size and academic level of the kids in the class shifts upwards and the August born kids in the correct cohort are even worse off as a result.

I agree that just turned four is too young to start school but the answer is to have an intake that runs March-March so all kids are at least 4.5, not allow almost uncontrolled deferral so you end up with an 18 month age range in the class.